The Executive Branch, Outdated?

Gale Rogers Jr.
Jul 27, 2017 · 4 min read

Perhaps we could learn something from the great state of Texas.


“The plural executive in Texas limits the power of the Governor by distributing power usually associated with a chief executive among many elected political leaders. The only executive official appointed by the Governor is the Secretary of State."


I am very anti-authoritarian/pro-balance-of-powers. I favor as much decentralization of power as is possible and reasonable, and still passionately maintain a strongly progressive agenda personally. Hear me out.

I would support the implementation of a similar, plural executive style system which Texas currently has, at the federal, executive level. This would substantially limit the power of the executive branch, especially the way I would do it.

No, not just because Trump is currently in power am I taking this position. I think this is a simple, yet highly beneficial upgrade to our government’s supposed democracy, non corrupt, separation of powers happens to be in power. We simply need to evolve as a government.

As Joe Rogan has pointed out, a single leader position is outdated. The idea of a single leader representing 330 million plus people is simply absurd. We don’t need a top alpha person type position anymore, we are no longer a clan. We are a huge society. Single leaders don’t make sense


My idea is a little different than the Texas system, but definitely inspired by. I think a three leader system in the executive branch would have wonderful benefits. Yes, three presidents and three vice presidents. All nominated by different political parties. Increased representation and more balance of powers.

Vetoing a piece of legislation passed by congress would require agreement by at least two out of the three presidents. The idea that a single man or woman can just overwrite the will of the congress so easily is preposterous. Executive orders would also need majority consensus.

Pardons, supreme court nominees, world meetings, top government appointees, various foreign policy negotiations, military decisions… these are just a few more examples of the deconcentration of powers this idea could achieve.

All Americans could vote on each of the political leaders they prefer in the executive branch. Three votes for each American concerning our highest leaders. Each vote must be for a different candidate. This would inherently have the added benefit of ending the two party system. An additional rule, requiring each leader to come from a different state, could balance out our national representation.

The presidents would have to vote on every issue to prevent ties. They would have deadlines to their decisions as to not slow down the political process. They would have nearly daily meetings and votes.

Occasional public debates among the three could give the common people more of a voice and less ignorance. I’m assuming that competition in the executive branch would result in populist influence, or as I like to call it, actual representation of the people.


This would be great for the progressive movement. It would likely lessen the power of the establishment, because special interests would have to buy three leaders instead of just one, and many conflicts would likely materialize.

I predict two scenarios in terms of what leaders we’d end up electing. We’d likely have a liberal party and a conservative party as we always have. The third leader’s party would either be some type of moderate or libertarian. Despite the results, progressives would likely have the most influence.

Why? These separation of powers could cause the leaders lesser corporate influence, as they would have to be diplomatic with the other leaders as well. The leaders could call each other out over outside influence— checks and balances.

There is also an argument to be made that more liberal parties might have an advantage of getting elected. Split votes seem more likely to have detrimental effects on conservatives, due to the fact that there is more right wing parties in this country than liberal.

If we get a libertarian party leader, personal freedom, immigration policies, criminal justice reform, the deconstruction of spying programs and demilitarization would all likely make strides as liberals and libertarians agree to some degree on all those issues.

If we got a moderate, we could make progress on economic justice, stronger social safety nets and strong progressive policies like single-payer healthcare and tuition free college.


Balance of powers and more representation for actual people could make our country greatly more transparent, fair and less corrupt. It’s a wild idea, I know, and there would have to be a lot more to it, but letting go of our ancient ways of the alpha leader just makes sense to me.

Rebuttals, inputs, questions and comments are welcome. Also, sharing and recommending my article if you found it intriguing would be very nice of you! Thank you!

Political commentator, debater, science journalism, opinion, philosopher, neuropharmacology expert, observer and learner.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade